Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 448

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A framework for global river flood risk assessments

Open access
Winsemius, H. C., Van Beek, L. P. H., Jongman, B., Ward, P. J., Bouwman, A.·2013·Hydrology and Earth System Sciences

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Abstract. There is an increasing need for strategic global assessments of flood risks in current and future conditions. In this paper, we propose a framework for global flood risk assessment for river floods, which can be applied in current conditions, as well as in future conditions due to climate and socio-economic changes. The framework's goal is to establish flood hazard and impact estimates at a high enough resolution to allow for their combination into a risk estimate, which can be used for strategic global flood risk assessments. The framework estimates hazard at a resolution of ~ 1 km2 using global forcing datasets of the current (or in scenario mode, future) climate, a global hydrological model, a global flood-routing model, and more importantly, an inundation downscaling routine. The second component of the framework combines hazard with flood impact models at the same resolution (e.g. damage, affected GDP, and affected population) to establish indicators for flood risk (e.g. annual expected damage, affected GDP, and affected population). The framework has been applied using the global hydrological model PCR-GLOBWB, which includes an optional global flood routing model DynRout, combined with scenarios from the Integrated Model to Assess the Global Environment (IMAGE). We performed downscaling of the hazard probability distributions to 1 km2 resolution with a new downscaling algorithm, applied on Bangladesh as a first case study application area. We demonstrate the risk assessment approach in Bangladesh based on GDP per capita data, population, and land use maps for 2010 and 2050. Validation of the hazard estimates has been performed using the Dartmouth Flood Observatory database. This was done by comparing a high return period flood with the maximum observed extent, as well as by comparing a time series of a single event with Dartmouth imagery of the event. Validation of modelled damage estimates was performed using observed damage estimates from the EM-DAT database and World Bank sources. We discuss and show sensitivities of the estimated risks with regard to the use of different climate input sets, decisions made in the downscaling algorithm, and different approaches to establish impact models.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/hess-17-1871-2013

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Winsemius, H. C., Van Beek, L. P. H., Jongman, B., Ward, P. J., & Bouwman, A.
Venue
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
Published
2013-05-21
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
1871-1892
ISSN
  • 1027-5606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1607-7938
OpenAlex
W2074766847
Cited by
448
References
3
FWCI
19.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.